Open main menu



Hello, I have a question for you: what is the declension of úszóhártya? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the declension table. :) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. --Panda10 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I came across that term and hógömb at the page "Short Pages," which can be found at the Community Portal (mind the Simplified Chinese entries, I think). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
One example I found at Short Pages is the Hungarian verb variál. Would you like to conjugate that? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I wish the short pages were separated by language. I expanded variál. --Panda10 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the least I could do to help you expand the Hungarian short pages is to look for them; and I'm patient with that. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be very helpful. Thank you. --Panda10 (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to have a look at my list of contributions for any Hungarian terms to which I added hu-IPA. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will do that. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Hungarian language former Short PagesEdit

Is it okay if I place a list of Hungarian language former short pages (you know, the ones I added hu-IPA to) on your user page or my user page? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked your contributions for Hungarian entries as we agreed previously and I saved over 230 items in a text file for future work. I have already corrected those where hu-IPA needed a phonetical respelling. I see that you cleaned up the short list pretty well. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian non-attributive possessiveEdit

I came across the entries in Category:hu-inflection of with unsupported tag/nonattr, which are for the "non-attributive possessive". As there are only three of these entries, I wonder if this is a normal form that all nouns have. The Hungarian noun inflection table doesn't list them.

Another thing I wonder is whether possessives can be stacked on top of case forms. That is, can you use one word to say "in my house"? In Finnish you can, so I wonder if it's the same in Hungarian. —CodeCat 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The non-attributive possessive forms were originally part of {{hu-decl}}, rows 7 and 8. If you notice those are missing from the sequence. They were deleted by Qorilla. I think they should be part of the declension table since all nouns can have them.
Possessive forms can be declined. In my house is one word in Hungarian: házamban: ház (house) -am (mine) -ban (in). Years ago I created {{hu-possessive-ak}} as an experiment but other did not like it at the time, so we went with the two-table format (a separate possessive). This also meant that I have to add a declension table to each possessive form (see házam - my house). --Panda10 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I do like the approach of treating possessives as sublemmas, as otherwise we would end up with noun entries with 13 inflection tables each. I notice that the ordering of the suffixes is the opposite from Finnish, where the order is plural-case-possessive. In Hungarian it's plural-possessive-case, I think?
I think that the non-attributive possessives should be re-added to the table. If they are forms that nouns normally have, then they belong there and should have entries. But I wonder if there isn't a less awkward term for it than "non-attributive", unless that's a standard term that English-language grammars of Hungarian always use. Can you describe under what circumstances the non-attributive form is used? Is it ever inflected like the other possessives? If I recall, Hungarian adjectives are not inflected when they are attributive, so is it related to that? —CodeCat 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we would end up with 13 inflection tables for each noun. I was thinking about one larger table containing all noun forms instead of the current two smaller tables with missing forms plus another declension table in each possessive form entry. But I have no problem with the current arrangement. A larger table might be too confusing.
Unfortunately, I don't speak Finnish. In Hungarian, the order is either lemma+case (ház+-ban = in the house) or lemma+plural+case (ház+-ak+-ban = in the houses) or lemma+possessive+case (ház+-am+-ban = in my house, ház+-aim+-ban = in my houses).
I agree, the term non-attributive possessive is weird, I've seen it in a language article and decided to use it because I did not know what else to use. Basically, it expresses possession without an object. The standard term in Hungarian is birtokjel (possessive marker) which is the name of the suffix and not the case.
Usage examples:
  • Ez a garázs ablaka, nem a házé. = This is the window of the garage, not that of the house.
  • Ez kinek a háza? A lányodé? (lány daughter +-od your + 's) = Whose house is this? Your daughter's?
A noun with this marker can be inflected. Take a look at this URL [1]. You will see how the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences handles declension of the noun ház. Each > sign in the main table will open a subtable with further declension. --Panda10 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Based on Finnish, I would say that the -i- in the possessives is a plural marker. This plural marker is historically reconstructed back to Proto-Uralic, so its appearance in the possessives is an archaism. So házaimban would be háza- (stem) -i- (plural) -m- (possessive) -ban (case). Finnish possessives are structured the same, just with a different order of suffixes: talo-i-ssa-ni, or if you were to use the actual cognate of the Hungarian word, kod-i-ssa-ni.
Normally, the opposite of attributive is predicative. So could it be called predicative instead of non-attributive? I also see similarities with English, where the possessive determiners have special pronoun forms that are used predicatively. It seems that házé is similar to mine in how it's used (the meaning is different of course).
I've also been thinking about the definition lines for possessives that {{hu-inflection of}} currently shows. They are a bit clunky. The difficulty is that there are both the number of the noun and the number of the possessor to account for. What do you think of phrasing it like this? For házam, it would be "first-person singular possessive of ház", and for házaim it would be "nominative plural of házam, the first-person singular possessive of ház". —CodeCat 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition line

My preference would be:
  • házam - "first-person singular possessive of ház (single possession)"
  • házaim - "first-person singular possessive of ház (multiple possessions)"

English name for the -é suffix

As I mentioned before, originally the -é suffix was listed in the case table and was called the genitive case. Mate Juhasz (and not Qorilla) removed it in 2008 saying "There is no genetive case in Hungarian, take a look at:". Linguists are arguing about this, but I've found a recent work that argues for it. Here are some of the other variants:

Location of the -é suffix

If we put it back to the case table, we will have to add a new parameter to allow hiding these two rows. Since the same declension table is used for sublemmas, adjectives, numerals, and pronouns, it is not always appropriate. For example, see the declension of házé. If the -é suffix is not hidden, it would display *házéé. --Panda10 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it, házam is kind of a noun of its own, and it has a full declension including its own case forms and plural form. So to me it makes sense to see házaim as the plural of házam. Is there a reason why you disagree with this approach?
As for the genitive, it's not common for genitives to be limited to predicate only. So this may be why there is disagreement over that. How would you say "the man's house" or "my friend's house"? Is the genitive not used for that? —CodeCat 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between the plural suffix (-k) and the possessive plural (-i). So házaim cannot be the "nominative plural of házam" because the nominative plural of házam would be *házamak, a non-existent word. We cannot just come up with our own naming conventions for things. I always search for references written by professionals to see their terminology.
I am not attached to the name "genitive" for the -é suffix. I described what was previously and listed some of the references I've found. I'd be happy with any of them. "the man's house" - a férfi háza; "my friend's house" - a barátom háza. --Panda10 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The normal plural and possessive plural have different suffixes, yes. But in both cases, they refer to a plural object, so they are plural. Consider it this way: my ház is házam, my házak are házaim. Multiple ház are házak, multiple házam are házaim. That clearly shows that while there are different plural formations, they still belong to the same semantic pattern. —CodeCat 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The personal interpretation of foreign language grammar rules can be very useful when we try to understand and memorize them. So if it makes sense to you to see házaim as the plural of házam, that's your personal view. But I don't think we should explain grammar rules here in wiktionary based on personal views. The word házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. It is formed from the lemma ház + -ai (possessive plural marker, one of -i, -ai, -ei, -jai, -jei) + -m (first-person possessive suffix). My preference for the definition line is still what I listed above. --Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that the article w:Hungarian noun phrase also describes things as I did. It even says "Before possessive suffixes, the plural k appears as ai or ei", which would imply that they are analysed as one and the same. Further down, it also says "The following suffixes are used for plural nouns:", which again clearly treats them as plurals. —CodeCat 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we all agree that -i is the possessive plural marker. However, what you stated was that házaim is the nominative plural of házam. And that is not a correct statement because házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. --Panda10 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
From a morphological point of view that's true. házaim is not derived from házam by suffixation. But from a semantic point of view, one is definitely the plural of the other. And we normally consider the semantic inflections on Wiktionary, not the morphology. For example, better can't possibly be called a comparative of good in a morphological sense, but it clearly is semantically. children is formed irregularly from child. Similarly, in Slovene, ljudje is the plural of človek even though they are nothing alike. And in Finnish, the pronouns hän and tuo have the plurals he and nuo even though the Finnish plural is normally created with -t. So in light of all these examples, I don't understand what the objection is to treating házaim as the plural of házam. Yes, the Hungarian plural is normally created with -k, but that doesn't mean there can't be exceptions. If "my houses" is not semantically the plural of "my house", then how would you describe the relationship between them? —CodeCat 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Which words decline in Hungarian?Edit

I'm guessing nouns and pronouns do, but what about adjectives? Do they have cases? —CodeCat 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjectives and numerals are also declined. I use the same declension templates for all. See informális and három. What is the goal of the changes you are making in the Hungarian declension templates? --Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
They are internal changes, to make them easier to manage. —CodeCat 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Essive-modal caseEdit

I've come across some nouns which do have an essive-modal singular form, but no essive-modal plural. I'm not sure if this is an error or not, so I'd like to make sure. And if this is not a mistake, then are there also nouns that have the plural but not the singular (other than plural-only nouns)? —CodeCat 20:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically, all nouns could have the essive-modal suffix, but most will not make sense and are not used at all. That's why this should be optional. --Panda10 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

krinolin and varrónőEdit

These entries have module errors due to missing parameters, and I have no clue how to fix them, since I know next to nothing about Hungarian. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New Hungarian nominal inflection templateEdit

After some work I was able to create a single template that neatly handles the functions of most of the existing templates. It's called {{hu-infl-nom}} (nom stands for "nominal" since it covers adjectives too) and is fully documented with many examples. Because it uses Lua, it's able to be a lot "smarter" and can do things like detecting what the final vowel or consonant is automatically. I hope you see it as an improvement. Is it ok if I replace the old deprecated templates with this new one? This should be easily doable with a bot. —CodeCat 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you wait with the bot? I'd like to take a look and do some testing. --Panda10 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Szia! Az akadémiai helyesírási szabályzat szótári része szerint a fenti szószerkezet különírandó: vegyes úszás. Tudnád javítani? Köszönettel, Einstein2 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Kijavítottam. Köszönöm, hogy szóltál. --Panda10 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Conjugation of átfésülEdit

Is the verb átfésül conjugated like fésül? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks in advance. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. --Panda10 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I also gave the template hu-IPA to a few verbs as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Now what about the verbs nyű and operál? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Panda10 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Three more verbs to conjugate, all ready for you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


In case of pages such as kurtizán, I created Category:Hungarian nouns needing inflection. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. --Panda10 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The entry piton has been added to the list. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hungarian words" appendicesEdit

Is there any particular reason you have been maintaining Appendix:Hungarian words A thru Appendix:Hungarian words Zs? They don't seem to do anything that Index:Hungarian doesn't. --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I correct typos in both, but otherwise I don't maintain them. The appendix contains a lot more words than the index (a good reminder of what needs to be added). The index contains only words mentioned in this wiki but shows more information about them. Unfortunately, the index has not been updated since April 2012 and it seems that it will stay that way. What is the reason you are asking? --Panda10 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek letter műEdit

Since you made an entry for Greek letter , I thought to myself "Why not add the category Category:hu:Greek letter names to the page for ?" --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, is there a way to show the alternative forms in the conjugation table (furcsállsz/furcsállasz, furcsálltok/furcsállotok, furcsálltam/furcsállottam, furcsállnék/furcsállanék etc.)—as here? Einstein2 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Einstein2 The only way is to add a second conjugation table with different parameters. The current template does not allow variant forms within the same table. --Panda10 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. Einstein2 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


I wanted to add a declension table to the entry but I couldn't because y is not a vowel. How can this be corrected? Einstein2 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily, use the old declension template {{hu-decl-k-back}}. For the long term, the module will have to be updated. We'll have to find out if this is feasible. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

elvész and other ingadozó álikes igékEdit

I was editing Wiktionary a few hours ago when I realized that the current conjugation template cannot deal with the concept of verbs that are regular but have an additional 3rd person singular form using the -ik conjugation (egerész(ik), heverész(ik), akadoz(ik), bomol/bomlik, tündököl/tündöklik, elvész/elveszik, hull/hullik, etc.).

Also, I left out the conjugation table for elvész because I couldn't find one that works in all moods and tenses and I couldn't find verbs that are conjugated similarly either. I think it's simply an irregular verb that should get its own template but I'm not entirely sure. 00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are actually three distinct verbs (three lemma entries in dictionaries: elvész, elveszik, elvesz) that have similar conjugations differing only in 3rd person present. For the álikes igék, the lemma is e.g. akadozik, not *akadoz, so the 3rd person present form will appear as akadozik in the conjugation table. There is an article in ikes igék helyes használata. --Panda10 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You do have a point, however, these are not regular álikes igék, they belong to a sub-category of álikes igék that have two possible 3rd person singular conjugations (while I agree that akadoz, heverész and egerész are indeed weird, they are found in older texts along with gitároz and other such verbs, and I don't think that there are any real differences between tündököl/tündöklik and bomol/bomlik).
I think we can all agree that elvesz and elvész have very different meanings and can't be used interchangeably. For example, while one can say Elveszem a telefonodat, the verb elvész is strictly intransitive, which also probably explains why the form elveszik is gaining popularity as alternative form.
The websites I've visited and the articles I've read seem to suggest that elveszik is simply an irregular/alternative form of elvész in the 3rd person singular rather than a separate lemma because the conjugations of the two verb forms are otherwise equivalent. It doesn't really matter in the end but now I'm really curious about what an actual linguist would say.
Thanks for finding the template as well, for some reason I confused elvész with elveszt and I thought that the existing table wasn't appropriate. 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. The solution for the ingadozó álikes verbs could be two separate entries, where the -ik verb would be the main entry and the other would be the "alternative of" entry (each with its own conjugation table, pronunciation, etc.). The variant without -ik is the older one, to prove its validity, I'm sure we can find quotations in older literature. For other references by linguists, here is a link to the downloadable PDF version of Grétsy-Kemény: Nyelvművelő kéziszótár. It contains two entries related to the above discussion (elvesz(ik)-elvész and vesz-vész-veszik). Questions on the site are also answered by linguists. I've found another article, although you might have seen all of these already: Ikes kétségek --Panda10 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


An I.P. address added kitartás. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will fix it. --Panda10 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian length contrast, take twoEdit

Earlier this year you mentioned at BP that you will no longer insist on including information about minimal pairs distinguished by length on Hungarian entries. On the other hand, upon further consideration this still seems to me like handy information to have somewhere, so I've started a collection: User:Tropylium/Hungarian minimal pairs by length. Feel free to add more if you see it fit. (For now I've been leaving out inflected forms though.) --Tropylium (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I started a list a few years ago in Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation pairs. I no longer add this information to the pronunciation section, but occasionally I still add a comment under Usage notes. But the Appendix is the place to collect them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right, I should have checked if an appendix already exists :) --Tropylium (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Belated question on reversionEdit

In 2014(!) you reverted the etymology I put in for Hu. telek, but I'm not sure why. I do see the new etymology, but it seems that the information I added should be there as an alternative, since I got it from an academic publication. Mind you, I'm no expert on Hungarian by any means, but I took the info I added from here: András Róna-Tas, Árpád Berta, László Károly. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian (2011). Mellsworthy (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I should add "IIRC" to the above. It has been two years. However, dern it, I am certain I was quoting a source. Why Oh Why didn't I cite!! Mellsworthy (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it because you did not provide any resources. I have two printed etymology dictionaries and they don't say anything about a West Old Turkic origin. I don't have András Róna's book and I am not able to search in it online to double check what it says about this word. --Panda10 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I finally tracked down an oblique reference I could find online, on page 136 of an article based on Róna-Tas et al's work, here. Unfortunately, this reference does not gloss the West Old Turkish word or the Hungarian word, but it does make clear that sense 1 and sense 2 of the Hungarian noun (wiktionary only has one of these senses; they're not talking about telek 'winters') correspond to sense 1 and sense 2 of the WOT word, both based on the Turkic base-word til-, which I had to figure out means 'cut'. (See dilmek, which disagrees about the proto-form, but is talking about the same forms in the same languages; it seems there is disagreement in Turkic historical linguistics about how to interpret the voiced initials that occur specifically in Turkish and Turkmen.) The WOT derivative tilök thus means, '(thing) resulting from cutting', a normal semantic source for parcels of land. On page 163 of this pdf of Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 2, it says that the reference for the chain WOT *tilök borrowed into Old Hungarian telük > Mod. Hu. telek is page 884 of Róna-Tas et al. I'm not at a university anymore, so I can't check Róna-Tas et al, but I think the forms I found online at least show that I'm not completely misremembering, and even tell me a page to cite. I hope you don't mind if I revert your reversion, with the addition of a reference to Róna-Tas et al. Not doing it today because I wanna make sure we're all on the same page. --Mellsworthy (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's fine if you add the information with the appropriate references. --Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Jewish HungarianEdit

Hi Panda. I have a list of words used by Hungarian Jews, and I was wondering if you'd be able to verify their use and enter them into Wiktionary. I'd provide you with the given definitions and etymologies. Are you interested? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Metaknowledge. I'm swamped with multiple different projects at this moment and I'm afraid I won't be able to start a new one for a while. But I think it would be a good idea to add your list of words and the other information you have about them to an appendix, so it would be available for future work. --Panda10 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That's okay. I'll try to do that; I hope you make progress on your projects for the time being. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello Panda10, You have reverted my edits at borjú and nyár. I just wanted to find out which part of my edit you thought was wrong. Regards,Borovi4ok (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok: Hi, when you modify an etymology, please provide a valid source. For borjú, your change did not match the Hungarian etymology dictionary, for nyár, you modified a sourced etymology and added your own. If you have a source and it does not match the currently listed ety, the best would be to add a new section saying that this different source says something else. --Panda10 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Panda10,
thank you for your answer.
first of all, I provided the Chuvash term for "calf", in proper modern spelling. You can check it in any Chuvash dictionary available to you. What was the reason to delete that edit of mine? Borovi4ok (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Borovi4ok: I added the Chuvash term back. Sorry about that part. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
OK Panda10. In both edits, I did not delete any of the existing date, but only changed the representation to better convey the nature of these Turkic borrowings. Your etymology dictionary seems to put all turkic terms in one messy mixture, without explanations.
Also, I hope you are aware that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic".
Good luck with your etymologies!Borovi4ok (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Borovi4ok: I did not know that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic". I briefly searched the internet, but I could not find anything that would state this equality clearly. The ety dictionary has a lengthier explanation than what I provided at the entry, but it was too complex for me at the time to translate, not to mention the unusual characters that are in the Proto-language examples. I will try to add some more information. Thanks for bringing this up. --Panda10 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Panda10,
"Bulgar Turkic" is term I'm used to in modern Russian-language Turkology. However, I've just found out that Wikipedia uses Oghur languages (which also looks fine to me). See for yourself, which term looks best to you. Borovi4ok (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

pos= on affixesEdit

Is there a particular reason why you're categorising all the affixes by part of speech? Hungarian is the only language where I've seen this done, so it's rather different from the common practice. —CodeCat 20:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Some of the prefixes can be used to form both verbs and nouns or adjectives. It is best to keep the categories clean and not as a dump of different types of words. This may not be a common practice today, but could be tomorrow. --Panda10 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
But if the affixes are the same, why distinguish them by part of speech? The -s in backwards (adverb) is not different from the suffix in backwards (adjective). Why is it better to keep them separate, as you say? —CodeCat 20:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The prefixes may look the same, but they may not have the same meaning. Not to mention, that we are categorizing the entries, not the affixes. --Panda10 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
To disambiguate the affixes, you can use idN=. See for example -o and in- and their categories. —CodeCat 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to stay with the part of speech categorization. The idN system is much more complicated and less standardized. The category names may contain either a meaning or a part of speech:
The part of speech categorization is not as uncommon as you think:
--Panda10 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

American learning HungarianEdit

Hello! I am an American learning Hungarian :) I am new to editing, and was wondering if I could give you Hungarian words here so that you can add them if you like :)

Colbertadam (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I can help. If you'd like to learn how to edit, you could add a word, I would review it and correct it if needed, then you could learn from the corrections. If you are not interested in editing, you could just add the words to this list: Wiktionary:Requested entries (Hungarian). --Panda10 (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information :) Making a "note to self" here, the words (so far) are "gondoskodás" which comes from "gondoskodik", and "törődés" which comes from "törődik". The English equivalent for both nouns would be care, concern, care taking, looking after, etc. Also, I notice that "érdekel" means "I care (about it)" much like "tetszik" is "I like (it)" ...the subject of the verb being the object/person receiving the action, not the actual "doer" of the action... rather than "érdeklem/érdekelem" and "tetszem" for "I...". Is this correct for the use of "érdekel"? Thank you. Colbertadam (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

érdekel is to be interested in someone or something, tetszik is to like someone or something. Examples:
  • Érdekel ez a téma./Engem érdekel ez a téma. - This subject interests me.
  • Tetszik ez a kép./Nekem tetszik ez a kép. - I like this picture; this picture pleases me.
Hope I understood your question correctly. --Panda10 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant to you (a post from elsewhere)Edit

As you also edited my entries, I'd appreciate it if you took a quick look here and responded when possible. Thanks! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

See my reply there. --Panda10 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for being so quick! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I recently saw a discussion on the request for deletion page for the {{hu-suffix}} template where you said this:
"Ok, I will delete them after I reworked the entries. I have already started using {{af}}. This may take some time, though. {{hu-prefix}} has about 900 entries, {{hu-suffix}} has about 17,000. Re inflected forms: Adding an etymology section to English forms may have less practical value, since English is not an agglutinative language. It is different in Hungarian where nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and numerals can have more than 34 different inflected forms, verbs much much more. If a Hungarian editor is willing to add this information using {{affix}}, what's the harm in it? --Panda10 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)"
Has this changed? I see that you are changing my {{af}} templates to {{hu-suffix}} ones. Thanks for your response --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If you read the entire conversation, you will see that {{hu-suffix}} has functionality that {{af}} does not, so we will keep it. However, {{hu-prefix}} will be deleted after I reworked all entries. I changed your edits to keep the entries consistent. You can look at existing entries to see how they are structured. --Panda10 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I must have missed that bit. Thanks for bearing with me as I figure this out --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I wanted to drop by and thank you for all of your very hard work in improving our coverage of Hungarian, especially for adding IPA and etymology to every entry that you create or modify, and for helping me out with mine. The Wiktionary project is definitely being bettered by your work in this language. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Panda10 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Inflection of words like DemszkyEdit

I have been updating inflection tables to the best of my ability, and I recognize that there are a few cases not covered by {{hu-infl-nom}}, which usually have their cases described in one of these templates' documentation pages. That said, this word, using {{hu-decl-k-front1}}, does not fall under the case described there (nouns ending in "ee"), yet {{hu-infl-nom}} cannot be used here. Would you mind adding a quick addition to one of the template documentation pages explaining how to treat cases like this? Sorry I'm so wordy, and thanks a ton (also for going over all my edits - I'm making an increased effort to be meticulously careful with them) :) --AtalinaDove (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

At this moment, the only template that will work for this word is the one that it currently uses. I'd have to create a new template for these cases. The next several days will be hectic, so I won't have time to do it, but after next week I will take a look. I am way behind checking your edits, but eventually I get there... I saw that you started changing the inflection tables in the entries, that's very helpful, just make sure the old and new match exactly. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Good to know. I think I was recently added to the autopatrol group, so perhaps that will make things easier for you after you catch up. --AtalinaDove (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation requestEdit

From pizza nigger. en->hu. This will go on the Hungarian Wiktionary.

"(offensive, slang) a person of Italian descent" Philmonte101 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding declensionsEdit

Hi again!

I've been noting with a request most entries that don't have a declension table yet (as you've probably noticed). Since there are so many, and it must take up quite a bit of your time, I was wondering if you knew of any reliable resources I could use to search and verify declensions so that I could possibly add them myself. I would love to help out in this way if possible, but if it's something that should really be left to someone who speaks the language, then that's fine. Also, if you'd like me to stop adding so many requests, just let me know. --AtalinaDove (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the requests. It's always very helpful when you mark the entries because it's easy to locate them in one place. I'd like to keep adding the declensions. But if you are interested in Hungarian declensions, there is a fairly reliable source (not 100% accurate, unfortunately): [2]. The case order is not exactly the same as ours. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for the source, and for looking after my edits. I am really interested in Hungarian, but I'm just a beginner so far, so it's good to know where to look for things like declension (other than Wiktionary, of course). --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to ask - are the etymology requests also useful? I usually just add them to words I'm interested in knowing the etymology of, but I could start adding them to all the entries I see without them. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they are also useful, but it will take more time to complete them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks again. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello Panda10 --

I just added my first entry, magyarul. :) I'm sure I've missed something, so I'd very much appreciate it if you could double-check the entry. For instance, I'm not sure if the second sense should be transitive instead.

Thank you,

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Not too bad for a first entry. :) Both senses are intransitive. The etymology can be tricky, so if you are not sure, it's better to omit the section entirely. --Panda10 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you!
I've poked through the Etimologiai szótár entry a bit, thank you for the pointer. Would it be correct to add a ===Related terms=== section that includes fagy? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Based on their entry in Zaicz's Etimologiai szótár, I don't think they are related etymologically. If you'd like to mention fagy, it would be fine to include it in a ===See also=== section in fázik. --Panda10 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian puskaEdit

Hey, do you have an etymology for this word? A Serbo-Croatian authority claims that the Slavic word is borrowed through Hungarian (ultimately from Old High German būhse/German Büchse), but our Hungarian entry says that it's the other way around. Normally I'd trust the first source, but the fact that the Hungarian word doesn't have a front vowel is fishy, and for all I know the metathesis might be a German dialect thing. Crom daba (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I updated it. --Panda10 (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you know anything about when the cheat sheet sense developed? Serbo-Croatian (or maybe just Serbian?) has puškica (diminutive of puška) with the same meaning. Crom daba (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I added ety 2. --Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes native speakers of Hungarian makeEdit

Szia Panda10, I have heard the Hungarian is a very hard language for foreigners to learn, due to the agglutination of the language. Would native Hungarian speakers make mistakes with things like these? Köszönöm – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 00:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, is the terms égnek áll syllabalised as [ˈeːɡ.nɛ.kaːlː] or [ˈeːɡ.nɛk.aːlː]AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 01:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there can be mistakes, some are considered worse than others. Mistakes in agglutination are present mostly in substandard speech and writing. The expression égnek áll contains two separate words, so they are syllabized separately: ég-nek áll. However, in continuous speech the expression is pronounced as one word, accent on the first syllable. --Panda10 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Cool! Can you learn other 'Uralic' languages easily? – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've never tried, so I can't say. --Panda10 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Etym at könyvEdit

This is currently shown as deriving from a Slavic language, and suggests a comparison to Proto-Slavic *kъnjiga. However, the etym at *kъnjiga currently states that the Hungarian term cannot have come from Proto-Slavic, and suggests instead a derivation from a Turkic language, comparing it with Proto-Turkic *küiniŋ, with an ultimate origin in Middle Chinese (/kɣiuᴇnX, kɣiuᴇnH/ obsolete or nonstandard characters (ᴇᴇ), invalid IPA characters (ᴇXᴇH), scroll).

I don't suppose you have any further insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I updated the etymology the best I could. The "compare" section contains several languages and words, I copied them as they were in the reference, I don't know their original form. Let me know if you need more information. --Panda10 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Names in HungarianEdit

Hey panda10, is it actually true that hungarian surnames go before first names? Quite bizarre, compared to other cultures around Hungary.

PS, is it actually true you live in the US (according to WT:Administrators)? I thought you lived in Hungary!! BTW I live in Australia – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 03:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes and yes. I think Eirikr's explanation below is very helpful. --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the Hungarian language itself is rather "bizarre", compared to the other mostly Indo-European languages of Europe. The difference in surname / given-name order seems fitting somehow, given the profound differences in vocabulary and grammar. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.



I see that the Etimológiai Szótár breaks out three etyms for this term. However, the nook sense seems much more likely to have developed out of the angle, wedge senses rather than from nail, and one reading of . See also the development of English nook, which demonstrates a similar semantic development. As such, I'm not sure this really merits three etym sections; just two would seem to suffice. What do you think? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the three sections based on the references. I think it's best to stick to what the linguists say about this. Also, we have a different set of derived terms based on the different etymologies. There is another online etymological dictionary and it has also three entries: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár (Tótfalusi István) (szeg1, szeg2, szeg3). Maybe you can help to clarify ety3. It is a semantic variant of the noun szeg, specifically of its original Proto-Ugric meaning of "wedge" in the sense of a wedge-like projection, corner, wedge-shaped area. I am curious, though, and if you don't mind, I'd like to ask: What is the reason you study Hungarian? Not too many people are interested in etymologies when they learn a language. :) --Panda10 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: keeping three, understood. I think etym 3 would make more sense to say that the nook sense came from wedge; from what I can tell, it seems the angle or wedge senses are older, while nail probably also arose as an extension of the wedge sense.
  • Re: etym interest in general, I find that my own approach to language learning is very analytic -- if I can understand the pieces, and how they interrelate, I gain a better grasp of the language as a whole. It's how I learned English, for that matter, as a kid. In two words, I'm a "word nerd". :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I updated it, adding more information from Zaicz and Tótfalusi. As for etym learning: Good for you! --Panda10 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

malac vs. disznóEdit

If you have the time and interest, I'd greatly appreciate etyms for these entries, and perhaps some information about how to distinguish these terms (usage, connotations, etc.).

Also, is the gloss for malac at tengerimalac correct? That says just "pig", while the full malac entry says "piglet".

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added more information to both. They can be interchangeable in many situations, although for a young piglet you would always use malac. As for the dirty meaning, disznó is very strong, malac can be playful. The gloss for tengerimalac is correct. --Panda10 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

bolondok vs bolondakEdit

Hello / Szervusz,

You have reverted this edit - I would like to say that the current form is incorrect, i.e. "bolondat" or "bolondak" is incorrect, instead it should be "bolondot" and "bolondok" etc.

Best regards, Whitepixels (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whitepixels: Hi, sorry I reverted it but my thought was that adjectives can have different declensions than nouns. See felelős (adjective and noun). There are adjectives that have both forms, such as boldogak-boldogok (adjective) - boldogok (noun) [3]. When I googled bolondat, there were only a few hits [4]. The Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelvtudományi Intézet webpage lists only bolondok-bolondot. [5]. I could add both saying that bolondak/bolondat is very rare. Unless you have a source that says bolondak/bolondat are incorrect forms. --Panda10 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

kellemes and kellEdit

Thank you for updating the etymology at kellemes. The kell entry currently only has verb senses; presumably it also has adjective senses? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kell is a verb. No adjective senses. I was trying to translate the information for kellemes from Gabor Zaicz's dictionary. Maybe it's misleading?
  • From Gabor Zaicz: kellemes [1270 tn. (?), 1533] Származékszó, a kell ’szükséges; kellemes’ ige -s melléknévképzővel ellátott alakja. A szó belseji m mozzanatos igeképző, vagy névszóképző.
  • From Vilma Eőry: kellemes: A → kell ‘szükséges; tetszik’ ige származéka.
  • For the senses (in Hungarian), see A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára. --Panda10 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Given the examples, it seems like kell sense #2 describes the thing itself as to be needed, required; to be wanted, desired. If my understanding is accurate, I think the sense development went kell (to be desired)kellem (that which is desired → pleasure?)kellemes (pleasant). Is that correct? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That would be the logical development. But according to Zaicz, the noun kellem is a back-formation from kellemes. --Panda10 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm curious if there are other cases where an expected intermediate form is actually a newer coinage. Are there other XXX terms that have XXX-emes derivatives, but no XXX-em derivative? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I searched Zaicz, but I could not find another example in that particular source. Sorry. --Panda10 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you for looking! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The English gloss for Hungarian állEdit

Hello Panda10 --

I saw your recent change to the gloss of áll in the állomás entry. My edit was motivated by a mismatch in senses between the Hungarian verb and the English gloss.

The Hungarian verb áll includes a sense of motion that is entirely absent from the English verb stand. In English, stand only refers to “being in one location”. There might be limited movement, such as stand up or even stand down, but the verb describes action in that one location.

For instance, in Hungarian, you can say Én állok a szálloda mögött. (I stand behind the hotel.) In both the Hungarian and the English, the verb implies that "I" am not moving, that I am staying in one place.

However, in Hungarian, you can also say Állok a tükörhöz (*I stand to the mirror, bad English grammar). In Hungarian, the verb can include a sense of motion -- indicating instead that the subject of the verb is changing locations, and that the subject then stands at the destination. In English, the sentence doesn't make any sense with just the verb stand -- one cannot grammatically stand to anything as a direction or motion (physically; there are certain set phrases like stand to attention that refer to mental state). To make sense in English, we need to add another verb that expresses the sense of "changing location": I go to the mirror and stand.

Does that explanation make sense? Would you be open to expanding the gloss for áll? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Thank you for your analysis. I've found it very interesting. There is a difference between "valahol áll" and "valahová áll". The latter involves movement and it would not be translated with "stand". The entry áll contains only the most basic meaning. I double checked the verb áll in A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára. It lists VIII major senses and 45 subsenses under them. Obviously, we can't include all of them in a gloss in állomás. Sense IV is "to take up a place somewhere", "to position oneself", meaning to step/go to a place and stay there. The expressions "a tükörhöz áll (to step to the mirror)", "a székre áll (to step onto the stool)", "a zuhany alá áll (to step under the shower)", "a testvére mellé áll (to come to stand beside one's sibling", "talpra áll (to get to one's feet)" belong to this sense. Another subsense within IV is that a vehicle moves somewhere and stays there for a certain time: "A kocsi a ház elé állt." To me, állomás is the place where the trains, buses stop and spend time waiting. You can expand the gloss if you wish. I removed "to go and stand" because it did not make sense to me phrased like that. Can you phrase it differently based on the above? --Panda10 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this! Upon reflection, I agree with your decision about vasutállomás. At the time of my edit, I was focused on the idea of the train moving into and then stopping at the station, but I think you're right that the stop sense is clearly the most salient part of the meaning here. :)
8 major senses and 45 sub-senses is a *lot*. This is clearly an important verb in Hungarian, I suppose much like get in English. I'd be quite interested in expanding the current áll entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I will work on it. It might take some time. It would be helpful if you'd take a look at the growing definitions and examples from time to time just to make sure the English rendition is correct. By the way, áll has transitive senses, as well, so the conjugation will have to show the transitive forms. --Panda10 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Happy to have a look from time to time. :)
Re: transitivity, I'm surprised. :) I haven't run into any transitive uses, and the entry at [[hu:áll]] prominently displays tárgyatlan (intransitive) at the top, so I went with that. Thank you for the clarification. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed itEdit

Hello! Recently, seen your problem and I think Category:Hungarian general pronouns seems ok now. :) ~ Z (m) 13:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@HastaLaVi2: Thank you for fixing it! Sorry to cause the error. :( --Panda10 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I am not from this wiki. But I am writing modules on Turkish wiktionary, just seen your problem by accident. Anyways, if you have any problem you can just ping me, I always love to help. ~ Z (m) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian help: "csurog"Edit

I see you are active here adding Hungarian words. Can you add the word "csurog" to Wiktionary? I don't speak Hungarian and I can't find out its exact meaning online. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet I added both csurog and csorog. They are alternative forms. --Panda10 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Szia, légyszi javítsd vissza a verzét. A definíció egyértelműen nem versekről beszél, hanem dalokról. Úgyismint a popzenék tipikus felépítése, ami angolban verse-chorus, magyarban verze-refrénnek hívják. Köszi!-- 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Értem. Visszajavítottam. --Panda10 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, közben gondolkodtam, és a versszak is jó. Mondjuk egy templomi ének esetében nyilván az utóbbi szót használnám. Bocs, ha hirtelen voltam.-- 17:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Semmi baj. Most már mind a kettő ott van. :) --Panda10 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Füzek + fűzek?Edit


Ennek kapcsán kérdezem: a fűzek nem egyszerűen a füzek alak hibás (vagy ha úgy tetszik, szubsztandard) helyesírású változata? Nem világos számomra, hogy ezt miért (lenne) érdemes felvennünk. Következik-e ebből az, hogy pl. a mindig mellett a mindíg alakot is felvegyük, meg még kismillió más mindennapos tévesztést? Adam78 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Azt hiszem, azért adtam hozzá ezeket, mert az MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézetének Alaktani táblázataiban is szerepelnek, bár zárójelben. Persze ők sem mindig tévedhetetlenek. Talán régies alakok? Nem ragaszkodom hozzájuk. Ha úgy gondolod, hogy nem helyesek, kiveszem őket. Egyébként szeretném megköszönöm a szerkesztéseidet. Nagyon sokat segítenek. --Panda10 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

-gráfus / -gráfiaEdit

Mindkét elválasztás helyes: 231. pont,  A magyar helyesírás szabályai, 12. kiadás (’The Rules of Hungarian Orthography, 12th edition’). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2015. →ISBN

Egyébként az AkH is fent van a neten, belinkeltem a template-be, remélem jó lett.-- 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Igen, jó. Köszi a javításokat. Panda10 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Azért nem írtam etimológiát hozzá (a te javaslatod alapján), mert semmilyen nyomát nem találom, hogy létezne ilyen szó. Se internetes tipográfiai szótárakban, se az Eckhardt-féle francia nagyszótárban, de még a Larousse-ban se. Ugyanekkora méretű szótárak rendszerint már bőven tartalmaznak szakszavakat is. A Duden-ben pl. benne is van a Divis, és az orosz és az angol is átvette ezt a szót a németből. Mivel a nyomdai szavak egy jó nagy részét mi is a németből vettük át, el tudom képzelni, hogy ezt is. Felőlem bennmaradhat, csak mivel nagy hangsúlyt fektetsz a pontosságra, gondoltam, szeretnél tudni róla.-- 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A Tótfalusi Idegenszó-tárban benne van mint nyomdaipari szakszó. Panda10 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Igen, éppen azt mondom, hogy láttam, és hogy miért nem adtam hozzá mégse.-- 22:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Sikerült megtalálnom a diviz szót két olyan korai nyomdászati könyvben, ahol még nem magyarosították, és mindkettőben német leírás szerint Divis-ként szerepel, nem divise-ként: az egyik 1897-ből van, 37. oldal, a másik 1905-ből, 13.oldal. A Wikiszótár szerint is német az etimológiája, ők ezekből a szótárakból dolgoztak. Összevetve ezt azzal, hogy a franciák nem tudnak róla, hogy létezne ilyen szavuk, szerintem itt a Tótfalusi téved. Főleg, mert a Wikiszótáras forrásmunkák között is szerepel az Idegenszó-tár, és mégse ezt az etimológiát hozták, ezek szerint találtak megbízhatóbb forrást. Átjavítottam a szócikket, de mivel nem tudom, hogy a forrásmunka listából melyik műben találták meg, legfeljebb a Wikiszótár linket tudom betenni referenciának.-- 08:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, leave it as from German. It's interesting that Wikiszótár uses the same Tótfalusi dictionaries (both the Idegenszó-tár and the Nagyszótár) and still marked it as from German. Since I researched it too, I want to leave this information here just for the record.
Printed dictionaries that say it's from French:
Bakos Ferenc: Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989
diviz fr, nyomd kötőjel, választójel
Tótfalusi István: Idegenszó-tár, Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2005
diviz nyomd kötőjel, választójel
fr divise 'ua.'
Bakos Ferenc: Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006
diviz fr, nyomd kötőjel, választójel
Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor: Idegen szavak szótára, Osiris Kiadó, 2007
diviz [lat-fr] kötőjel, kiskötőjel, elválasztójel
Note: The two source languages connected with a hyphen in the above line mean borrowed from two languages; it is not using an arrow in this case which would mean that it went from one language to the other. This is an explanation from the book.
Online sources with etymology that say it's from French:
Tótfalusi István: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár - Szókincsháló
Tótfalusi István: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár - Arcanum (different website, but same dictionary as above)
Büky László: Mínuszos hír, Édes anyanyelvünk, bottom of page 12.
Old dictionaries that contain the word with different spelling, no etymology:
Bíró Miklós: Nyomdászati Lexikon, 1936
The actual entry is Divíz with long í. It points to kötőjel, where it is listed as divis.
Pusztai Ferencz: Nyomdászati encziklopédia, PALLAS IRODALMI ÉS NYOMDAI RÉSZVÉNYTÁRSASÁG, 1902
Divis, l. Kötőjel.
Pusztai Ferencz: Nyomdászati mesterszók, Pallas Részvénytársaság nyomdája, 1902
Spelled: divíz (it is not a headword, one has to search for it)
I also asked Lmaltier, a French Wiktionary editor with excellent English, you can see his reply below. There is a French word divisé which is some kind of participle of the French diviser that has a sense labeled typography. Did Tótfalusi and all the others left the accent off the letter e? Did they copy the same incorrect information from each other? I don't know and I don't want to guess and I don't know how to reach Sarkadi Zsolt, the Wikiszótár editor to find out which source he used for the German etymology. We both spent a lot of time time with research. :)
Panda10 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and effort spent on researching this. There is an e-mail address listed on Wikiszótár (wikiszotar(kukac), however, I'm not sure it would reach the editor. It's probably used for website maintenance issues and such. To me, finding the word with the original German spelling in two different works is the most convincing, coupled with the fact that I couldn't find any trace of such a word in French dictionaries, or in actual usage. And I just wanted to make a note of it here, to avoid any misunderstanding about why I corrected the etymology, since all of this information does not fit in the article or the edit comment. I know none of this is absolute proof, but I suppose when it comes to the origin of words, sometimes the best we can do is make educated guesses. Thank you again and thank you Lmaltier as well, for clarifying the French part.-- 08:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Translation of the typographic definition of diviser: cut a word at the end of a line, according to some rules. For me, there is no French word divise meaning hyphen (nothing found about such a word). Nonetheless, diviz might be of French origin, I would not be surprised, but I have no idea... Lmaltier (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

hiányzó igealakokEdit

Hiányoznak a következő igealakok a megfelelő táblázatokból:
eltör: eltörött
támad: támadt
Hozzá tudnád adni? Én nem találtam ilyen paramétert.-- 21:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hozzáadtam. Nézd meg, hogy így gondoltad-e. Panda10 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Köszi. Én úgy gondoltam, hogy mindkét alakjuk helyes (eltört/eltörött és támadt/támadott), múlt idejű alakként. Melléknévi igenévként ritkán hallani, ezért ott nem tudom, mi a jó. A támadt/támadott-ra találtam is egy cikket, ahol leírják, hogy jelentés-, illetve vonzatbeli különbség van köztük, pl.
"Támadt egy probléma." nem pedig *"Támadott egy probléma."
"Három kislányt támadott meg egy kutya." nem pedig *"Három kislányt támadt meg egy kutya."
Az eltört/eltörött-nek nem néztem utána, de meglepődnék, ha a kettőből valamelyik hibás lenne. (Bár ez nem jelent semmit, mert meglepődtem a könyörgöm-ön is, hogy helytelen.)
Viszont, ha már itt tartunk, hadd kérdezzek valamit, mert úgy tűnik, értesz ehhez, vagy tanultad. Nem tudod véletlenül, hogy magyar nyelvészeti terminológiában van-e az ilyen igékre valamilyen szó? Tehát ahol több változata is van ugyanannak az igealaknak. Angolul "abundant verb"-nek hívják, de magyarban csak rendhagyó igeként találkoztam vele (más nyelvekkel kapcsolatban), ami nyilván egy jóval tágabb fogalom.-- 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Melléknévi igenévként is helyes a hosszabb alak. Az eltörött inkább régies (az eltörött kancsó), a támadott viszont ma is használatos (a támadott jogszabály), de csak abban az egy értelemben, hogy valaki/valami ellen megy. A cikk érdekes volt. Sajnos a mi igeragozási sablonjainkba a kettős múlt idő nincs beleépítve. Itt van egy érdekes tanulmány: Jakab László: Tanulmányok az igeragozás köréből, 1999, a fejezet, ami ide vonatkozik: "A mai magyar köznyelv múlt idejű alakjai".
Lehetséges megoldások:
  1. Egy megjegyzésben el lehet magyarázni a kettős alakot és az esetleges jelentésbeli eltérést. A megjegyzés lehet a Usage notes alatt vagy közvetlenül a megfelelő jelentés után.
  2. Az igeragozási sablonokat User:Qorilla készítette. Utolsó szerkesztése 2016 júniusában volt. Talán lehetne neki üzenni, hogy volna-e ideje és kedve egy rövid időre visszatérni és ezt a jelenséget hozzáadni.
  3. Meg lehet kérni valakit a Beer parlour üzenőfalán, hogy segítsen ebben. Egyszerűbb változtatásokat én is meg tudtam csinálni régebben, de ez egy kicsit bonyolult.
Az abundant verb jelentése eszerint a forrás szerint (a latin nyelvre vonatkozóan): "verbs having the same meaning expressed by different forms of conjugation". A mi esetünket egy kicsit másnak érzem, mert itt jelentéshasadás is van. Ezt a szót használja az általad talált cikk. Más magyar szakszót nem tudok erre. Talán User:Adam78 többet tud erről. Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sajnos nem tudok egyebet, csak a szabad váltakozás jut eszembe. Adam78 (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Igen, ez már akkor is felmerült, de végül csak a melléknévi igenévnél csináltam erre opciót. Hozzáadhatok egy újabb flaget, amivel mindkét alak megjelenik az E/3 múlt időnél is. Qorilla (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Qorilla: Köszönöm, hogy válaszoltál. Nagy segítség lenne, ha hozzáadnád az új flaget. A programozási szaktudásod nélkül elég nehezen mennek a változtatások. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Végül hozzáadtam egy új paramétert az olyan igék miatt, mint az ír, aminek különbözik a múlt ideje és a bef. mni. igeneve (legalábbis a mai magyar nyelvben). Beleírtam a dokumentációba is. Panda10 és @Adam78, köszönöm a válaszokat, nekem az is segítség, ha tudom, hogy nincs pontos magyar megfelelője.-- 18:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ál: shouldn't it be ál- instead, for its Hungarian meaning?Edit

Although it exists as a full-fledged adjective, it's rather peripheral (see also the reference I added). I wonder if it should be discussed under ál- instead, perhaps with a mere link from the current entry. Adam78 (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The prefix ál- existed before, however, in 2009 I changed it from prefix to adjective. But I agree that it makes sense to have both. The verb áltat is from the adjective ál, and probably not from the prefix ál-. I will rework it. Thanks for bringing it up. Panda10 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Questionable comparisons of adjectivesEdit

I'd respectfully suggest that you delete both the entry of and the link to akkreditáltabb, akadálytalanabb, ajánlottabb, adósabb, and adminisztratívabb (maybe aggódóbb too). Just like one cannot be "a little pregnant" (as the joke goes), there are other adjectives as well that just don't make much sense in comparative and superlative forms. I wonder if you could flag these adjectives (and all the other similar ones) in their inflections as incomparable? Adam78 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: legszándékosabban, legvádlóbban, legnyilvánosabban, legjogtalanabbul, legittasabban, legállandóbban, vádlóbban, and ideiglenesebben are also questionable in my opinion. Adam78 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC) + algebraibb Adam78 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I deleted the first five, but then started checking in Google Books. All returned hits except akkreditáltabb and legittasabban. So shouldn't we leave them? Panda10 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's our task to invent dubious concepts just because they are grammatically possible. There may be a reference to practically everything (as there is a reference for "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" because someone invented it on one occasion), but we can just leave them as rare, occasional exceptions to the rule (or hapax legomena, nonce words). Please don't restore any, I'd say. Adam78 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I do see your point but it's not about inventing dubious concepts. It's about recording usage. The form entries can be very useful to users who know nothing about Hungarian. For example, I don't know Latin, but when I need to look up inflected words in a sentence, the form entries are really useful to point to their corresponding lemma entries. If these forms are deleted everywhere (meaning they are not even in the inflection tables), the search engine will not recognize them and will not give a hint to the user where to find the lemma entry. So I'm not sure deleting them is the best way to handle this. Other options:
  1. Keep the forms and add a recommendation in the Usage note section of the main entry about not using them.
  2. Delete the forms, mark the main entry as "not comparable", but add the comparison forms in Usage notes as a grammatical possibility, but rare usage.
  3. Delete the forms, but keep them in the main entry's headline and mark them rare.
What do you think? Panda10 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I prefer the second. On the other hand, I think there are many more noun forms with "-ul/-ül" which would be more important but which are systematically overlooked and dismissed at the moment. See specific examples (about a hundred in magnitude, only those that have already occurred in actual texts) under w:hu:Essivus-modalis. Adam78 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will use option 2 and I will add the "-ul/-ül" forms to the declension tables using the Wikipedia examples. Panda10 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Adam78 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


"The book was translated to Hungarian and the quotation is from the translated work. I think this is permitted." Unfortunately the translation is by me, not from the "official" English translation. I couldn't possibly find the English full text online. :( Adam78 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Here is what I meant: The book, A Living Lie, was written by Paul Bourget, a French novelist. This was translated to Hungarian by Tóth Béla and the quotation under tessék is from this translated book. It's okay that you translated the quoted sentence to English. What the Dynamic IP user said was that we can't use quotations from translated books. This is not how I interpret the rule "all quotations should be from works written in the language of the word in question." For example, I could quote from an English language book (never formally translated to Hungarian) that uses or explains the Hungarian word tessék in English. That would not be an appropriate quotation since the language of the quotation would be English. I hope this make sense. :) Panda10 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I have since found the English full text online, including this part and I've inserted it. Adam78 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

One more thing about tetszik. I suggest the conjugation chart should be expanded to include alternative forms of the subjunctive mood:

  • tetsszek / tetsszem / tessek / tessem
  • tetssz / tetsszél / tess / tessél
  • tetsszen / tetsszék / tessen / tessék
  • tetsszünk / tessünk
  • tetsszetek / tessetek
  • tetsszenek / tessenek

In terms of the tssz ~ ss alternation, these variants could be displayed at metsz as well (e.g. math books consistently use the Messük el… forms). Adam78 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I created a custom template for tetszik. What should we do with megtetszik? Should we leave it as is? The custom template can handle verbal prefixes. I will create a custom template for metsz, as well. I've noticed that you are updating the Matthias Buchmeier pages. You may already know this, but those pages are generated (and re-generated from time to time) by a bot from the translation tables. Panda10 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I had a vague suspicion about the Buchmeier pages but I was far from sure. Thank you for the information.

Thanks a lot for the tetszik chart too! It looks very good. In fact, there is not only megtetszik, but also áttetszik, feltetszik, kitetszik, and visszatetszik (archaic or obsolete as they are). These all (and of course megtetszik) should ideally have the same forms. Adam78 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi, how can we fix the declension for idő to include ideig as its irregular terminative form? (Időig can only be used in some very narrow and specialized sense.) Adam78 (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I added a note above the declension tables about the variant forms. Sometimes we apply this solution. Another option would be a custom template. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I think it would be better to have an option to overwrite manually any value that has been assigned automatically, or at least certain cases where some alternation is known to occur, like this one. In other words, a value should be displayed in the chart only if it hasn't been overwritten by a manually entered different value. Adam78 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: What if both values are correct? Panda10 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In that case, both values could be given manually. :) Adam78 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Yes, that would be the ideal template. The current declension template situation is a little chaotic. The original script templates were re-written in Lua (which I don't know at all) with the goal of replacing the script templates. This goal was not accomplished because the Lua module is not updated with these little exceptions. I patch up the old script templates here and there with items that the Lua module can't handle. But what you are asking is really a major update that should be in the module. Panda10 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, at least the instances where there are manual additions, supplements, and/or remarks to the results of existing templates should be collected somewhere, maybe in some hidden maintenance category, so that once (if ever) these things become possible, we should be able to find them among the tens or hundreds of thousands of entries. Adam78 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The exceptions are all documented under the Usage section of the old templates. See: {{hu-decl-ak}}, {{hu-decl-ek}}, {{hu-decl-ek2}}, {{hu-decl-ök}}, {{hu-decl-ok}}, {{hu-decl-k-back}}, {{hu-decl-k-front1}}, {{hu-decl-k-front2}}. These are the templates that {{hu-infl-nom}} was supposed to replace. Maybe we could add a future improvements section to the documentation of {{hu-infl-nom}} and summarize these instances in one place. We just have to remember to keep all of these synchronized since it appears these exceptions are constantly growing. I will look into adding a new patch to cover ideig. Panda10 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'd really appreciate it! Adam78 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Category for - things (plus -tár, -szer too, probably)Edit

Can we create a category for words prefixed with , such as {{af|hu|mű-|something}}? I suppose we could move most of the content of this entry to mű- because it seems more of a prefix than a full-fledged constituent in these words.

Actually, it's a question whether we should equally include, without any further distinction,

  • words where mű- means ’artificial’ (műhold etc.)
  • words where mű- means ’artistic’ (műbútor etc.)
  • words where mű- is a genuine constituent (műelemzés, műbírálat, műgyűjtő, műértő, műkedvelő, műkereskedő etc.)
  • words where mű- has a more complex meaning, as in műegyetem, művész, műtét, műszer.

In the same vein, I think we could create categories for words ending in -tár or -szer too, because there are loads of them. – I just noticed there is a category for -szer, but I mean words like gyógyszer, kötszer, kegyszer, vegyszer, óvszer, tanszer, tápszer, fűszer, élelmiszer etc. See many of them listed at the bottom of this page

That reminds me, I am still in doubt whether a separate treatment of words with -szor, -szer, and -ször is a good idea, and all suffixes (like -alom/-elem) that have more than one variant depending on vowel harmony. After all, these are the same suffixes, with exactly the same meaning…

Adam78 (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: It's probably fine to create mű-, but I'm not sure about -tár and -szer. Perhaps I don't see the improvement factor. As for the suffixes, I restructured -szor, -szer-, -ször just for testing the idea, and here too, I'm uncertain if this is so much better. Users will have to do one more click to get to the information. A separate entry is needed for each variant of the -alom/-elem type suffix, since the pronunciation, declension and derived terms category are different and when writing etymology for words with these suffixes, e.g. {af|küzd|-elem}, the {af} template needs to point to something. Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Adam78: I've created mű-, please take a look and let me know if this is what you wanted. Also I'd like to know your thoughts on the current restructuring of -szor/-szer/-ször. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mű- looks great, thanks a lot! At least for the moment I think it will be fine with the category, as well, I mean without any further division. For -szor/-szer/-ször, they look good to me, although I think we should clarify that this suffix has two different meanings depending on whether it derives from an ordinal or a cardinal numeral stem, e.g. egyszer vs. először, kétszer vs. másodszor etc. It's not quite obvious even for native speakers; and it can cause even more confusion for non-Hungarian speakers. For -tár and -szer as compound suffixes, if we don't create a category for these words, it's fine with me, but in that case they should be available together in some other way, whether within the entry of the given suffix or in a separate appendix. Adam78 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I updated -szor to the best of my knowledge to separate the two meanings. Sorry, if I still don't grasp the difference between the list of compound words under tár in the Derived terms section and the list of words in -tár as a suffix category. I'd truly would like to understand why the the latter is better. After all, they would contain the same list of words, just categorized differently (compound words vs. suffixed words). Panda10 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they will be fine in the Derived terms section, at least for the time being. Honestly, I'm still relatively a novice at Wiktionary and all I see is that there is an immense number of categories (maybe hundreds only among affixes in Hungarian), while certain related words are still connected only (more or less) randomly. It's not completely clear for me why certain categories are created and others are not, but as I delve into this project more and more, it'll hopefully become more and more clear. Adam78 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The affix categories are created for users to see the list of words with the same affix for comparison and learning. The high number of affix categories are a natural consequence of the high number of affixes in Hungarian. Categories are only for lemmas. We don't create categories for words with case suffixes since they are non-lemma entries. What are the categories that are missing in your view? Can you give me examples for related words that should be connected but aren't? It's entirely possible that the missing things are missing because of the huge amount of work and the small number of editors who work on them. :) Panda10 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Connecting categories with related suffixesEdit

What do you think could be inserted to categories that contain the same suffix, except for differences due to vowel harmony? For example, what could we insert at the top of category:Hungarian adverbs suffixed with -ente, maybe something like this?

See also -anta, -onta, -önte.

I'm not really happy with it; I think it should be made to look more professional and more uniform. I think it's indefensible that now it seems as if -anta and -onta were just as far from each other as -ás and -ok. Adam78 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a slash (/) instead of the comma? See these for methods I've used before: Category:Hungarian verbs suffixed with -ik or Category:Hungarian nouns suffixed with -adalom. Panda10 (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they look all right, although I'm not convinced if it's the best solution possible. At least there should be a template to link mutually related categories together, just like you created templates for some related pronoun forms. This template could also make it possible to change the appearance of these links at the same time. (This individual linking is not so cool.) Adam78 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The template I created for the related pronouns was a usage template, with everything hard-coded. They don't contain any intelligent mechanisms. "This individual linking is not so cool" - you mean for the user or for the editor? All the templates that you suggested so far are great, but there are not enough Hungarian editors to implement all of the ideas. Since we all have only a certain amount of time we can spend here, I'd like to make sure that the important tasks get first priority. For example: Creating new entries; adding more senses to existing entries; adding gloss definitions to clarify the English meaning of each sense; correcting mistakes; etc. Panda10 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

etymology of simogatEdit

Are you sure that in this case the sources claim that the frequentative suffix -ogat is added to the adjective sima, rather than the verb simít or its root sim-? Adam78 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Yes, this is how I understood it. But here's what the sources say exactly:
  • Eőry: "A → sima melléknév származéka."
  • Zaicz: "A sima számos további származék alapszava, vö. simít [1560 k.], simul [1604], simogat [1636]."
Let me know if you interpret them differently. Panda10 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, these sources don't mention if it's a direct or indirect derivative and – to my best knowledge – the frequentative suffix cannot be added to an adjective, so this derivation must be indirect, I suppose. Then again, these sources do not specifically substantiate this interpretation, while our current description doesn't make much sense. Maybe we should add some parenthetical remark about the missing link? Adam78 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Zaicz says the following about -gat/-get: "Az igés képzések analógiájára néhány esetben megtalálható névszói vagy egyéb szófajú alapszó mellett is, pl. édesget, igazgat, bizonygat, jajgat." I'm not sure what else to do or where to look for more detailed etymology. Panda10 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

All right, I can accept it; we can leave it then. Thank you again. Adam78 (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

plural forms of compass point namesEdit

I removed the plural forms of Hu. compass point names from the declension charts (except for dél, which has another meaning as well, and nyugat, at least for the time being, with respect to the former literary periodical). I checked E-Szókincs, which has no plural for this word: kelet, and even its possessive suffixed forms are given in parentheses, and Hungarian National Corpus with its 180 million words, which also doesn't have keletek except for typos. I also made a Google search and I only found typos for this form. I think we should find some reasonable and justifiable limit as to what we should include as possible and realistic. Adam78 (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the corrections and the research. I will correct the derived words similarly (e.g. északkelet). Panda10 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and I think you could also delete nyugatok as an entry. (I only found one hit that mentions keletek and nyugatok, but it looks like an individual coinage, a hapax legomenon.) Adam78 (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing towns in HungaryEdit

Could you help me categorize Mezőkövesd, Paks, Siófok, Szentes, Szentendre, Szekszárd, Tokaj, Villány, and Velence (and maybe some more) into Category:en:Towns in Hungary, included by Category:en:Towns, Category:en:Hungary, Category:en:List of sets and Category:Towns in Hungary, while the latter is included by Category:Towns, Category:Hungary, and Category:List of sets?

# {{place|en|town|c/[[Hungary]]}}

…should do this in the source of the given entries (as it works fine for cities in Hungary!), but it apparently won't. Originally I used {{auto cat}} in the newly created categories, but they didn't work, so I inserted their content manually, but it also didn't help. I suppose something else needs to be done in the code (?). Thank you in advance.

PS. In terms of the division between cities and towns, I basically used the arbitrary rule of thumb on whether the settlement comprises more or fewer than 50.000 inhabitants. On the other hand, if it's a county seat, I still categorized them as cities, no matter how many residents they have.

PS 2: I just noticed that Category:hu:Cities in Hungary is rather deficient. (I didn't want to start standardizing all the definitions in the articles because it would have involved loss of information.)

Adam78 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've spent some time looking into the structure, but so far I can't see what's missing to create these categories with the standard auto cat. Maybe it's something in Module:place/data. But besides that, I really don't think it's a good idea to divide Hungarian cities into cities and towns. The Hungarian language (and Wikipedia) uses város for both. We should go by the terms of the Hungarian public administration and not by the English. Also, who will remember that the difference between city and town is the arbitrary number of 50,000 inhabitants? Not to mention that the number of inhabitants can change over time. Please see Wiktionary:Place names - this is the page for listing the administrative terms for settlements by country. The section for Hungary is empty at this moment. As for adding {{place}} to existing Hungarian entries without the loss of information to fill up Category:hu:Cities in Hungary, please see Baja or the examples in the documentation of {{place}}. Panda10 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the distinctions of the Hungarian language truly matter in the English-language Wiktionary. Just think of it: Whoever visits Wiktionary (or Wikipedia etc.) will expect to read texts in standard English. I doubt we have the right to redefine existing terms contrary to native speakers' normal and natural usage (let alone the one billion non-native English speakers), such as cities to include towns. It's an existing distinction in English so we'd better face it, I think. (If város were a widespread loan word in English, it would be a different case, but it is actually not.) Not mentioning the fact that it would be preposterous to categorize a town with 2.000 or 5.000 inhabitants as a city. These terms are somewhat flexible but definitely not to this extent. I admit the line is not clear but it doesn't mean that the majority couldn't be categorized just fine. I also admit that 50.000 is arbitrary, however, we can find a more objective criterion, such as megyei jogú város (plus Budapest), which includes all county seats and a few more. (I got the idea when I was reading the Hungary-related section of the article on "town" as such in Wikipedia, looking for some criterion or distinction.) Interestingly, the limit was originally also 50.000 inhabitants for them, but today they include five more cities/towns with a little smaller population. As a rule, I think it's quite normal that an existing division is reinterpreted when it's inserted into a new, larger system, like when Hungary joined the EU, its counties were reinterpreted as NUTS 3 level units (short for Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) in accordance with the other EU member states. In my opinion, the Hungary-related terms could be integrated into the English-language Wiktionary system with some similar adaptation. We can use "city" to include every megyei jogú város and "town" for all the rest, and the question is resolved. We could bring up this criterion on the Place names page, and I think people will accept it. How about that? Adam78 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: This version sounds better than the previous one. I am still concerned about keeping the information up-to-date. When a village becomes a town and a town becomes a city, who will update this information? I've submitted a question to Grease pit about the category issue. Panda10 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • First of all, thank you for raising the issue at Grease pit. I do hope there will be some result.
  • I think it's rare that the legal status of a village or town changes, maybe once in ten or twenty years. Nothing earth-shattering will happen if it remains without update for some while.
  • I recommend that you check out the towns and cities in Hungary and sort the chart by population. You'll see that out of the 346 towns/cities listed, there are only 24 that would be categorized as cities (megyek jogú városok + Budapest) and the vast majority (322, i.e. 93% of them) would be towns. And most of them are towns indeed, without any doubt. You need to scroll down to half of the page to reach only 10,000 inhabitants! Megyei jogú város also correlates well with size: the only town with 40,000+ inhabitants will be Dunakeszi, so with this one exception the limit will be practically even lower (40,000, rather than 50,000). There are 12 towns with 30,000–40,000 inhabitants, 22 with 20,000–30,000 inhabitants, 85 with 10,000–20,000 inhabitants, and 202 with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Of course, many of them may not need to be included in the English-language Wiktionary but now I think it should be clear that this distinction can be useful and quite natural in terms of the actual meaning of the words. Adam78 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Adam78: Thank you for the link to the list, the system as you've described will be fine. I'm glad the categories are now in place and the template is working as it should. Panda10 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it still doesn't work. One has to manually enter Category:en:Towns in Hungary and Category:hu:Towns in Hungary, see Baja or Esztergom for example. Adam78 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 I removed the link from Hungary and it worked. Panda10 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


But your rollback is in error. I am not one of those crazies who take advantage of the fact that ANYONE can edit Wikipedia.

asking for help to overwrite a redirectEdit

I wanted to move arm and a leg to an arm and a leg with the following reason:

  • "cost/spend/charge arm an a leg" doesn't exist; the article is just as necessary before "arm" as it is before "leg"

However, I cannot, because there is already a reverse redirect there.

If you agree with the reason, please move it as an administrator. Adam78 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: There was a discussion and decision on this here. Panda10 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I see, the decision is not about omitting "an" but about omitting "cost" from the title. "An" is still indispensable nonetheless. Adam78 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I requested it here: Adam78 (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nagyszótár templateEdit

Hi, thank you for the template. I should mention, though, that a given year (like in this case 2013) only applies to one volume, occasionally two, so this date will have to be omitted from the general template, or modified like 2006–2031, or adapted to the particular initial letter/s (in this case, D). You can find the content of the individual volumes here: hu:w:A magyar nyelv nagyszótára#Eddig megjelent kötetei. I'm not sure which would be the most professional solution, maybe inserting 2006–2031. Adam78 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I removed the year from the template name, updated the entries, and added 2006–2031 to the template text. Thank you for the information. Panda10 (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Present participles becoming adjectivesEdit

Hi, what makes you think oszló exists as an adjective as well? I tried to look through all relevant instances of this word in Magyar Nemzeti Szövegtár, but I didn't really find any where this new function could have been grasped. It seems to mean everywhere something in the process of disintegrating, decomposing, dispersing etc., even though it has some syntactic criteria if a word gains a new function like this. For example, one of the reasons why we can know that menő exists as an adjective too is that you can say nagyon menő, which wouldn't be possible if it were a participle (cf. *nagyon iskolába menő). On the other hand, if it takes an adverb that expresses the manner, it has to be an adjective (e.g. lassan iskolába menő and lassan menő are possible but *lassan vagány are not, although the latter word is interchangeable with menő whenever it's in the adjectival meaning). I think there are other syntactic tests as well, probably described in Új magyar nyelvtan or Strukturális magyar nyelvtan / Mondattan among others (I don't remember exactly). There are similar tests to distinguish adjectives from nouns, like a word ending in or can only take -óak or -őek (e.g. láthatóak) if it's a true adjective, but *darálóak are not possible because it's a noun. In other words, just because a participle can theoretically become an adjective it doesn't mean that it will and just because a word could exist it doesn't imply that it actually does. So if you agree, please delete the adjective sense, or if you don't, please kindly provide some reference if you can. As a matter of fact, the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives should be provided only if we are positive that they do exist. There doesn't need to be a specific quotation but at least you should create an example in your mind where it sounds truly natural. For oszló, I didn't manage to come up with any example since whenever I tried it, I always tended to express this meaning in a way like könnyebben oszló and legkönnyebben oszló rather than *oszlóbb and *legoszlóbb, and this was what made me think about their existence in the first place. (Foszlósabb and legfoszlósabb (kalács) is another case, of course. I wonder if some seemingly similar analogy might have misled you or you mechanically created these forms.) I think we should be faithful to reality (the "hard facts") in this aspect as well, rather than hypothesizing forms without grounds. If someone should still need these forms, they can just deduce them from grammar rules (and there is not much irregularity about comparative and superlative forms anyway). Adam78 (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Here is some information I've found:
  1. In Bárczi Géza–Országh László: A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959–1962, the entry oszló is both an adjective and a noun.
  2. In Pusztai Ferenc: Magyar értelmező kéziszótár, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2003, the word oszló is a noun (oszlóban van) and a present participle (no example was given).
  3. The E-Szókincs Alaktani táblázatok contains the entire declension for a noun.
  4. I've found only two examples for comparative: Móricz Zsigmond: Az Bétsi Susánna: A zene egyre halkabb és oszlóbb lesz...; Presits Péter: Húsvéti tűzgömb: A harmadik perc után a kígyóból „kacskaringós” lett, amely függőleges irányban (elsősorban alulról felfelé) rövidült, oldalirányban szélesedett, a csík maga vastagabb és oszlóbb lett.
  5. Only one example for superlative: "a legoszlóbb halott".
  6. A melléknévi igenév szófajváltásáról a Magyar Grammatika 236. oldala három szempontot közöl: a) szerepelhet-e a mondatban állítmányként, b) határozóként és c) fokozható-e. Ha a három szempont mindegyike teljesül, valószínű, hogy az igenévi alak szófajt váltott: melléknév lett belőle.
The declension table in the entry was added by you in the original version, above the verb form, not below. I normally don't add declension tables to present participles. So should I revert my changes? Panda10 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into the matter so exhaustively. (By the way, there is no question about the noun form with -ban, I've seen it too, it should be mentioned indeed. My only question concerned the adjectival function.) I think we should find a more general solution for extremely rare, untypical, peripheral cases that should not be taken as a model for language learners, at least adding an option "rare" or "rarely", otherwise it will look like some parts of these entries are automatically generated without human supervision, which would be awkward, needless to say. So we should apply this rare or untypical or similar label in this case as well. Perhaps there are some instances for such cases in English-language entries. Adam78 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I updated the entry. Panda10 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an extra parameter in template:R:hu:AkH2015 for an optional link descriptionEdit

I'd like to link the section A különírás és az egybeírás in the linked document, but the name of the link is not a number but "F4", which doesn't look very meaningful. I wonder if we could have an extra parameter that provides an optional link description, such as [Writing as separate words or as one word] in A magyar helyesírás szabályai, 12. kiadás…. In fact, it should be embedded into (and made subordinate to) the condition of whether a section label is given, because otherwise no specific description is needed. This parameter would be employed in the articles egybeírás and különírás, among others. Thank you if you can help. Adam78 (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 I added the "gloss" parameter. See különírás. Panda10 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it's great, except that "F4" shouldn't be visible in my opinion (it's completely irrelevant), so if there is a gloss, the value of the section parameter should not be displayed. What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Okay, I updated the template. Panda10 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, now it looks perfect. :) Adam78 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This is completely off-topic, but...Edit

You have a very pleasant voice. Just so you know. -- 22:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it sounds remarkably professional, which can't be said for all our audio. And thanks to you both, I've just set kocka as foreign word of the day. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! :) Panda10 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


As I went through the meanings of szükség in A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára, I didn't really find anything that would make the plural form possible. If you agree, would you please delete it? I could then mark it as singular-only. Thanks. Adam78 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there are some very sporadic instances, though. Google found 38 hits for "ezek a szükségek". First it showed 1000+, but then it turned out it's much fewer. Anyway, we should mark it as rare, at least. Adam78 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I entered "szükségek" in Google Books. There are 9580 hits, mostly from the 1800s or early 1900s. E.g.: "az emberi szükségek oly sokfélék és változatosak". Instead of rare, perhaps archaic? I think it was used in the sense of szükségletek. Panda10 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's fine, also because it doesn't preclude its occasional use today, but it expresses that it will sound strange nevertheless. Thank you. Adam78 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:Hungarian adjective-verb phrasesEdit

(Moved discussion from Appendix talk:Hungarian adjective-verb phrases to here since that page will be deleted.)

@Panda10 Since there are so few phrases that remained here, and since there is such a vague and fine line between adjectives and nouns (as shown by nagy, nehéz, tiszta etc.), I suggest that we close down this page and move the remaining phrases back to the original list (perhaps with some slight mark showing that they contain genuine adjectives). What do you think?

At the same time, I think it should be renamed to show its broader scope, including definite or indefinite numerals (egy, sok e.g. in eggyé válik and sokra tart) and adverbials (listed at the bottom). Maybe the perspective could be slightly changed too, perhaps based on OH.'s term igei alaptagú állandósult szókapcsolat (p. 94), adding the word other (the verb being at the end), that is, possibly something like Hungarian verb-final collocations / set phrases / idioms (??). Adam78 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The category name Hungarian verb-final set phrases does sound more professional but to list everything in one page creates its own problems. It might grow so large that it will be hard to navigate. Perhaps creating subpages for each title would be a future solution when this happens and the main page could be displaying only the subpage titles. What should happen to the current categories Category:Hungarian noun-verb phrases, Category:Hungarian adjective-verb phrases‎? What to do with noun-final phrases as in Category:Hungarian noun-verb-noun phrases‎, Category:Hungarian verb-noun phrases‎? Panda10 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the latter two questions are fairly easy to answer: they could be renamed (moved) to Hungarian verb-medial set phrases and Hungarian verb-initial set phrases. For the other part, I think it would be really good if these could be browsed on a single page, perhaps in collapsible boxes arranged by case. In my opinion, the formatting should be changed too into a more compact layout, not starting every phrase in a new line and in a little smaller (but still readable) font size. Adam78 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Okay. Single page, words listed right next to each other and not in a new line. We'll see if a smaller font is necessary later. I'm not sure about collapsible boxes. I've tried it, you can see the different formats on the same page. The format of the box is changing and on mobile devices these boxes disappear and all items are listed in a single new line. Panda10 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Adam78: I've reformatted half of it, take a look and see if it is better than the old layout. Might be a little less clear with all the words in one line. Panda10 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe some divisor character could be inserted between them but anyway, I think it's a lot better than the original. Thank you. (I hope you're using some search and replace command, such as the one in Word, otherwise it may take unnecessarily much work.) Adam78 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

korább, legkorábbEdit

I just noticed the reference you inserted. If you add obsolete, archaic, rare or otherwise uncommon forms, please always mark them as such. It is really important for others to see at first glance if something is a mistake or it is just beyond current native speakers' linguistic competence. It is also important for non-native speakers (Hungarian language learners or anyone interested) to know if they should take some linguistic data at face value, as actually existing, valid, effective, useful pieces of information, or as purely historical or theoretical tidbits that sound outright impossible or outlandish to contemporary speakers, something that they should practically avoid in speech just like native speakers do. Thank you. Adam78 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I added the label "archaic". When you changed the comparative to "korábbi" and the superlative to "legkorábbi", did you have any reference for that? How would a reader know the reason for the unusual derivation with an -i at the end? Panda10 (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I “only” used my native language competence, knowing that I would never say korább nyár, but I might say korábbi nyár. I think a reader being confused about the irregularity is a smaller problem than indicating a form that a contemporary native speaker wouldn't use and perhaps wouldn't even understand. To my mind, usability and truthfulness are preferred to deducibility. After all, we all know very well that there are plenty of exceptions in all natural languages, so why couldn't there be one here. Adam78 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Feel free to change it anyway you want to. Panda10 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be dismissive, though. I am sorry if it sounded like that. I only want to do my best so the information people get from Wiktionary should be as trustworthy and useful as possible (in terms of contemporary usage). At the same time, I believe we can find ways to reconcile this goal with historical accuracy and grammatical consistency. Hopefully all the discussions between us can and will further this cause. Adam78 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Sure, no problem. Panda10 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

-sz/-d stem verbs like gazdagodik and gazdagszikEdit

I think these verb pairs (all the verbs that belong to this type) should be consistently treated as each others' alternative forms (rather than synonyms). You can see my changes, linking one of them to the other (perhaps the -szik type is somewhat less used so it should redirect to the -odik/-edik form) with a template link "alternative form of". Their meaning is the same (we should possibly avoid redundance and inconsistent or diverging definitions), their conjugation is the same (both types merged as alternatives throughout) and, first of all, they constitute a verb type on its own (-sz/-d stem verbs).

Also, we should consider how to reflect their meanings, which are often not perfective without a prefix that expresses perfection (like meg-) so that's why I wrote get richer to gazdagodik, with a gloss as explanation. Nevertheless, there might be certain syntactic structures where even gazdagodik can take on the meaning of get rich, at the moment I'm unsure, but you probably agree that it primarily refers to a process, not a result.

Luckily this question only affects verbs that are translated into Hungarian with become/turn/go/get or make/render plus an adjective. Maybe we could create some template for these verbs and many others (like szélesít as opposed to kiszélesít).

I'm open to any and all kinds of suggestions from you. Adam78 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I like the changes and your recommendations. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I also changed Template:hu-conj-szom because a link was missing and because gazdagodom, vastagodom are completely possible forms and yet they were missing. I checked the verbs that currently link to this template and I think gyanakodom, mosakodom, csillapodom, and tolakodom are possible, probably nyugodom, megnyugodom too, whereas aludom, elaludom, kialudom, haragudom are not (at least not in the indefinite sense). In fact, aludok and haragudok aren't really possible, either, so I think the variation should be including both the -(o/u)dok/-(o/u)dom forms or excluding both of them, rather than dealing with the -(o/u)dom form only.

In terms of the front-vowel version, emlékezem, igyekezem, betegedem, dicsekedem are probably possible, verekedem, veszekedem, cselekedem, növekedem, törekedem, melegedem, öregedem may sound more or less unusual while hidegedem don't really sound possible. As a result, I'm afraid we cannot hardwire this option into the templates (neither can we exclude it altogether). In fact, I think these are not incorrect grammatically and even if they are uncommon, it's mostly due to the long form itself (-ede[m/k]) rather than the -m ending only. So maybe if some forms of certain verbs are disabled in the template (or in one of its parameters), it may be the long form rather than the -m ending.

I'm sorry, this question is not really simple. Would you like to add some parameter or do you have a better suggestion? Adam78 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I'm not sure how to resolve that issue, it will need more thinking. But let's complete the first task for all these verb pairs: to keep -odik as the base and connect -szik as the alternative form. We will need to keep their original conjugation, they are not identical. Check out the usage notes at gazdagodik. Is it general enough? Can it be used for other verbs? If yes, I can create a template. I wonder if the perfective prefix is always meg-, or can it be also el-. Panda10 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you create this template with an optional parameter. If it is not given, the template text will include -meg, and if it's given, the text will include whatever is specified. The latter option will be needed for verbs like szélesít, which take ki- in the perfective sense, or adósodik is an example for el-, and is an example for le-, although in this case meg- forms the half-perfective variant. I also suggest inserting an automated link into this template so that readers can immediately check out this form, without having to scroll down and find the right form in the list below. I think it will be a widely used template. Adam78 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have an idea. I noticed that fekszik practically has its own (or at least, highly customized) conjugation template (({{hu-conj-szem-üd|fek|üd|t=y|intrans=y}}) while alszik and haragszik are treated together with many other verbs that have a different conjugation (such as {{hu-conj-szom|al|ud|t=y|vó-only=y}}). What if we just remove alszik and haragszik and treat them specifically (a bit like fekszik) and then the original template (linked above) will be able to generate correct and possible forms for all the remaining verbs even if we add the -(o/e)m alternative? I think it's the best solution. Adam78 (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding conjugated potential verbs form to the conjugation template?Edit

I think it would be useful to add a compact extension to the bottom of the current conjugation templates, containing the conjugated potential verb forms, because some of their forms (namely, the subjunctive) are not transparent (e.g. it is not easy to derive ehessen from eszik for a non-native speaker). If someone looks up a subjunctive potential form, they should be able to find it at least in the search function of Wiktionary as a link, even if we never create those non-lemma pages.

I created an experimental alternative template for eszik:

What do you think?

What's more, I'm also thinking about using the empty space at the top of the box more usefully, especially because there are participle forms (evő, evett, and possibly eendő too) that can take case suffixes, and there is currently no reference whatsoever to these existing forms, either. What if someone wants to look up word forms like evőket or megevettnél? To make the appearance sleeker, we could just have the suffix in the link description, e.g. [[evőket|-ket]], for all the singular and plural endings, for both (or all the three) participle forms (present, past, and future) that can have declension in Hungarian.

The current list of forms (enni, evő, evett, éve, ehet) could be pushed to the left side and the remaining space could host these forms, especially if only the endings are provided (one row for the 16 suffixed singular form of the present participle, another row for the 16 plural forms of the same participle, then two more rows for the past participle, and two more rows for the future participle; this way we could fill up this void very nicely). Adam78 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've just created the entry for ehet. Will that work? I find the sample table a little too crowded and not as clear. Panda10 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It could only work if the potential forms of all verbs were created. I think it would be immense extra work to create nézhet, láthat, olvashat etc. for thousands (!) of verbs, only to enable people to find their conjugated potential forms. Isn't it simpler if it's generated by the template? In terms of implementation, layout etc., I'm open to all other suggestions. Adam78 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The potential forms cannot just stay on the bottom without labels. This would mean to append a second large table to the current one, using the same labels and structure. Have you ever used Wiktionary on a cell phone or another mobile device to look at these large conjugation tables? What about all the missing noun/adjective forms: asztalomat, legnagyobbnak, etc.? Why making an exception with verb forms? Panda10 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the table can (and should) be made more compact, first of all, by making the first verb form column wider, to make enough room for eszek or eszem or én téged/titeket eszlek. If we could reduce the description part on the far left side from three to two columns (I'm pretty sure it's possible), then we could gain a lot of space in height.

On the other hand, we wouldn't necessarily have to repeat all the labels for the potential verb forms as long as it's clear that we simply follow the order of the forms above. If necessary, tool tips could also help navigation (a description appearing when you hover the cursor over a link). I would prefer to make these potential forms look secondary in comparison with the primary verb forms.

In connection with asztalomat, legnagyobbnak etc., yes, I do absolutely and wholeheartedly support their linking (in a compact way); I just didn't want to overwhelm you with too many ideas at the same time. Adam78 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I have a feeling that this task is beyond my current coding abilities. Right now I need to work on two other things: 1) cleaning up the hu-suffix conversion - more than 200 entries; 2) finishing the -sz/-d verbs discussed above. Panda10 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Adam78: I suppose the goal is to change the layout for every verb, not just the special ones. I haven't tested any of the ideas below, so I'm not sure if they are technically feasible, but here is what I think:
  • Potential table: I've looked at other foreign language verb conjugation templates. Examples:
A) A very large table in {{zu-infl-verb}}, look at the placement of the mood headers, this table is coded in Lua which means in mobile view it is open by default and cannot be closed.
B) Multiple dynamic tables below each other in {{tr-conj-head}}. This is a script, so in mobile view all the tables are closed by default, as they should be.
C) Multiple dynamic tables inside a single dynamic table in {{sw-conj}}, each with its own show/hide link. This is in Lua again, so in mobile view all the sub-tables are open.
Based on this, we could try to copy the potential table at the bottom of the regular conjugation table and if users want to look at it, they can click "show". The potential forms would be included in search. Externally, before opening the table, users would see one table. Same as the current situation. When they click "show", the regular table would open, at the bottom the unopened Potential table would be visible. The parameter numbers start with 1 in the potential table, so those would have to be renumbered.
  • Infinitive row: This could be deleted from the top, the "Conjugated infinitive" label at the bottom could be changed to "Infinitive", the actual infinitive form moved to the beginning of the row: "Infinitive: enni | ennem | enned | ennie | ennünk | ennetek | enniük.
  • Inflection of participles: By adding the inflected forms, we would mix conjugation with declension. Not sure if this is desirable. But the real complexity comes with the additional parameters that would have to be introduced to the conjugation table. This would mean modifying every single verb.
  • Creating form entries with a bot: We could leave the current conjugation tables as they are and request a bot run to create the potential form entries for all existing verbs. I'm not sure how this would work since everybody is busy with their own projects.
  • Possessive forms of nouns: Since we are talking about templates. A few years ago I created an experimental template to show all possessive forms: {{hu-possessive}}. I've never had the time to actually implement it. I was hesitant because it behaves and looks slightly differently than the current case table. Here is a comparison: {{hu-infl-pos-table-comparison}}. Panda10 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to delve into the issue in detail. I will think it over, but now first I'd like to quote a current headline from a news portal: Jávor: Kifizettetheti a Roszatom, ha a magyarok hibájából csúszik a Paks 2. As a matter of fact, I think we should think about the combination of causative and potential forms, since this is visibly possible. Adam78 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The -hat/-het verbs are treated as non-lemmas, potential forms, with custom conjugation tables, while the -tat/-tet verbs are lemmas with their own senses and regular conjugation table which does include their own potential form. If we append the potential table to the regular table, the -tat/-tet tables will automatically contain the -tathat/-tethet forms. See hibáztat. Panda10 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


I thought it was intentional that suffixes are marked without quotes, so I'm confused about this edit: [6] Adam78 (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether it's a translation or a description/explanation/paraphrasing of the meaning. Adam78 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Panda10 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Improving Template:number box to include display of important forms of Hungarian numeralsEdit

Could you please help me improve this template or request it from the appropriate person or at the appropriate place, so that this module can be displayed with all its parameters (if given for a particular number), that is, 11 parameters for most numbers? At the moment, many of the additional parameters are not displayed at all; you can try {{number box|hu|2}}. By the way, the colon should be italicized after the name of the form or at least there should be a space after it; now it's pretty ugly. Adam78 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I tested this with your example by adding {{number box|hu|2}} to kettő without removing the {{cardinalbox}}. The difference is interesting. There is no space before the colon and seven of the parameters are listed. Only two are missing: Nominal and Number of people. So what should be the question to be posted to Wiktionary:Grease_pit? Panda10 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Adam78: I believe the extra parameters are not defined in Module:number_list. Only seven of them are listed at the beginning of the module code. So the parameter names you created will have to be added by someone and maybe explained what they are for. Panda10 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, would you like me to make this request there? I don't think I've done it before in Wiktionary. In fact, I think I'd like to ask for one more thing, that is, to be able to link both két and kettő from the box, as two items in the same field, separated by a comma, as well as the opportunity to modify the link description at the very bottom to display both terms when linking to "2 (szám)". Adam78 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Yes, please add this request to Grease pit where the technical questions and requests are discussed. Just click the plus sign between the Edit and History tabs to add a new request. Your understanding of the new parameters are better than mine. I'd separate the specific new requirements with bullets or numbers to make them clearer. Just to clarify: You want to use the {{cardinalbox}} template and display all parameters the same way as the {{number box}} template? Or you want to add new functionality and new parameters to {{number box}}? The wplink parameter is available in {{cardinalbox}} only. The linking of két and kettő from {{number box}} is already available. Changing the description, I'm not sure if it makes sense. It is connected to the page name which is either kettő or két. Panda10 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

wplink only affects the destination of the link, but anyway, it's not so important. If we avoid ordinalbox and cardinalbox, and use only the number box, the link will work, so this problem can be avoided, yes. It's a pity we don't have a more professional name than number of people... Adam78 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

szúnyog and irregular spellingEdit

Hi, I'm sorry this isn't very timely, but about two months ago you reversed my edit on the page for szúnyog. I had read that although it is spelt with a long 'ú' it is pronounced with a short 'u' instead. Is that not true? On the Wikipedia page for Hungarian orthography Hungarian orthography, in the section 'four principles of spelling', in the second paragraph it says: "In some cases, however, vowel length or consonant length does not match between writing and pronunciation (e.g. szúnyog [suɲog] ‘mosquito’, küzd [kyːzd] ‘fight’, állat [aːlɒt] ‘animal’, egy [eɟː] ‘one’)." Is this incorrect? There is also a page on the Hungarian Wikipedia that lists all such spellings and includes these (see here). I'm very interested in these spellings and think that they should be reflected on Wiktionary if they are accurate, if they are not then maybe the Wikipedia page needs revising? Please let me know, I want to know what is correct. (Please ping me or else I won't see the reply, or you can continue this conversation on my talk page if you prefer) Thanks! 2WR1 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@2WR1: Hi, I reversed your edit because [ˈsuːɲoɡ] is the standard pronunciation and as such it has to be mentioned even if there are other dialectal variants. I'm not sure about the short u, maybe it's dialectal, or just rapid speech makes it sound short. I've never heard it pronounced that way and I grew up in Hungary. Same with küzd, never heard it with long ű. Not to mention állat [aːlɒt] which always sounded to me like uneducated speech. As for egy [eɟː], that's standard and this is how it's displayed here in this wiki. I went through the Hungarian Wikipedia list, some of the examples are puzzling. The article mixes the standard assimilation rules (listed in Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation assimilation) with other types of pronunciation. I checked the history of the Wikipedia articles and noticed that User:Adam78 was among the editors. He might be able to give you a more up-to-date information about this subject. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer. Panda10 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Panda10 Thanks for your quick reply, that's very interesting. I had always read those things and assumed they were true so it's interesting to hear a native speaker say otherwise, it makes me question where this information was coming from in the first place. If it is dialectal I guess Wikipedia should reflect that, I don't know a ton about Hungarian but I'm interested in it's spelling. I knew about egy before, are there any other words that you know of that have something like this? An irregular spelling that is. Thanks again 2WR1 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@2WR1 It seems that the Wikipedia lists are fine, the pronunciation of the listed words is not stable, some pronounce it long, others short, depending on which area of the country they grew up. Panda10 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I could write lots of things (I think I took note about six items to be expounded on) but for the moment, let this one be enough (written by him). First and foremost of all, however, let's avoid the fallacy of spelling (cf. also this), especially as far as the length of i/í, u/ú, ü/ű is concerned. Anyway, we can leave [szúnyog] as well as a pronunciation variant, with long a ú, if you're sure it sounds common for you, independently of its written form. Adam78 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 Thanks for the links. I still think the regular long ú pronunciation should be kept, but I added the variant with short u and a link to pronunciation audio on Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Panda10 @Adam78, interesting! So could I add in other such pronunciations as alternative pronunciations? If any of these are true, I think that Wiktionary should reflect that and list them for the entries. 2WR1 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@2WR1 Let's not rush into this. There is a lot to think about. Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In fact, there is a phonological rule in Hungarian that excludes the [aːlːɒt] pronunciation of állat, the one that forbids VVCC (the cluster of a long vowel followed by a long/geminate consonant, if within a single word, that is, not including long consonants from inflection, derivation, or compounding). (@2WR1, if you look up Google with keywords like VVCC Hungarian phonology, you can find sources about it in English as well. I'm sorry I couldn't provide English-language sources for my preceding post.) There is a nice introductory article about it in Hungarian too. This article is also relevant here because it mentions more cases where the spelling is misleading in terms of pronunciation in terms of the length of i/í, u/ú, ü/ű (e.g. gyújt, nyújt, sújt, múlt, all with a short [u] in pronunciation). The caveat for the word being uninflected and uncompounded is interesting because this is actually the only way we distinguish súlyt (with a long ú) and sújt (with a short u in pronunciation) or írt (the past tense of ír, with a long í) and irt (in the sense 'exterminate', no inflection). In short, the mechanical transcription by the IPA template can be nothing more than a starting point in terms of the length of these vowels.
  • As a point of interest, Ádám Nádasdy, the author of many linguistic educational articles, some of which I linked above, aimed to follow pronunciation in his translations of Shakespeare's plays (e.g. writing sűrü instead of sűrű, as far as I recall), since its lines were supposed to be recited on stage by professional actors, and there's no use creating poetry that sound unnatural, even if they might look somewhat uncommon in writing.
  • Most of the content of the Wikipedia article linked above is by me; I compiled the bulk of it from former spelling competition task sheets. Admittedly, it's only "indirect proof", but if a form is a worthy candidate of spelling competitions, one can suspect that these are tricky words; or if a particular word is not tricky (i.e., its pronunciation does match its spelling), there are many exceptions among representatives of this type (i/í, u/ú, ü/ű) so their spelling is not quite predictable.
  • See also this post and this post (the reference at the latter is corrected here). The latter brings up a suggestion by the eminent linguist Loránd Benkő to abolish the length distinction of these three vowels pairs, because they often depend more on the dialectal region (basically Eastern or Western Hungary) than the word in question.
  • I also recommend checking out the reference book Helyesírás, especially on page 50 and on pp. 56–57. What I mean from the former is mainly this paragraph:
    A magánhangzópárok közül az i : í, u : ú, ü : ű helyes kiejtésével van a legtöbb gond. Ennek oka az, hogy mivel a nyugat-magyarországi nyelvjárások lényegében a rövid változatokkal élnek, a kelet-magyarországiak pedig sokkal gyakrabban a hosszúakkal, a kiejtésben nagy az ingadozás, illetőleg esetenként a hosszú és a rövid kiejtésváltozatok is előfordulnak. A helyesírás ezzel szemben egyetlen alakváltozatot fogad el, vagyis sokszor meg kell tanulni, hogy egy-egy szó vagy szóalak milyen kiejtésváltozat vagy hagyomány alapján íródik. Ha például valaki a dicsér ige i-jét hosszan ejti, meg kell tanulnia a rövid i-s rögzítést.
    • The latter passage lists a couple of words whose pronunciation either varies or differs from the written form. The words with a short written i/u/ü or o/ö variant are the following: április, árboc (NB: its spelling was changed to long in 2015), bogáncs, bögöly, böjt, bura (NB: its spelling was also changed to long in 2015), csibor, csüd, dicsér, finom, ige, irigy, kiváló, körönd, körút, lakos, mindig, nyirbál, odáz, ördöngös, öv, papiros, posta, pöröly, regös, rökönyödik, sima, szerviz, szolid, Tibor. (Doubtlessly, some of them occur with a long vowel only in substandard speech.) The ones listed with a long written í/ú/ű or ó/ő are the following: alól, bíbic, bőrönd, búcsú, búza, csípő, csúnya, diszciplína, előtt, felől, gúnár, gúnya, gyűlöl, hínár, hiúz, hízeleg, ígér, immúnis (it was changed in the meantime, according to a later edition of the spelling dictionary, so it's immunis today), ítél, július, június, kandúr, kímél, kísér, kísért, kíván, kíváncsi, pandúr, papír, presztízs, rubeóla (already changed: rubeola), szelíd, szúnyog [!], tímár, túzok, zúzmara. (Again, some of them occur with a short vowel only in substandard speech.)
  • (Actually, these words could be included in the Wikipedia article, too, and this reference above could be cited as a source. I admit Wikipedia is not a proper source on its own; instead, it should only summarize and/or rearrange other pieces of knowledge that are referenced below.) Anyway, we ought to consider the genuine pronunciation of these words carefully and mention explicitly and truthfully all those cases where they commonly differ from the written form. If Loránd Benkő claimed that it's one of the most confusing fields of Hungarian spelling (and these cases are ever so often tested at spelling competitions) then we'd better give credence to it.
  • The best would be if we had a pronunciation dictionary so we could look up every single word in question. All I have is this one and it only lists foreign words. I don't have László Fekete's books →ISBN or →ISBN. Hopefully the reference book Helyesírás can substitute for them to an extent, with its explanatory first section. Adam78 (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Adam78 wow! Thanks for all the information, it's super interesting. As someone who doesn't know Hungarian but is really interested in it, adding this kind of information to the Wikipedia Hungarian orthography page, or a separate new page, would be a great resource. 2WR1 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, you mention some words whose standard spellings were changed, I think the old spelling should still be included as "superceded" variant spellings or something like that. 2WR1 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Adam78: Thank you for the links and the outstanding, detailed analysis. Needles to say, I need some time to wrap my head around it. Eőry, Vilma. Értelmező szótár+ (’Explanatory Dictionary Plus’). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2007. →ISBN does contain pronunciation notes for some of the words. For example: [kíván] vagy [kiván]. A hosszú í-s ejtés választékosabb. If you download the PDF and search for "Kiejtés", you'll see them. We could start with that list, since it came from a dictionary. As for állat :) - okay, I understand, there is a rule. But who follows it? I don't and no one I know does. Listen to this audio. Panda10 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Panda10".